A Liberal Revaluation of the Tudor Monarchy: A. F. Pollard

Abstract

A.F. Pollard’s position is different from that of F.W. Maitland’s: whereas the latter is now generally revered, posterity had more criticism than admiration for Pollard. What admiration there was was never without a certain reserve. Unlike Maitland, Pollard is not one of the ‘immortals’; nor was Pollard the kind of person to attract much sympathy or admiration. Because of his authoritarian personality his many colleagues seldom became friends. Moreover, in his critical reviews he sometimes showed a lack of understanding of other people’s viewpoints; once he had become convinced of the correctness of his own point of view, he found it hard to give an unbiased judgment of other people’s views.¹ In this respect his reviews resemble those of J.H. Round, for whose highly critical way of thinking Pollard (unlike many others) had great admiration. He defended Round’s view as indispensable to post-Victorian revisionist historiography: “Since history, particularly medieval history, has consisted so largely of hypothesis and fable, historical research has had to devote itself largely to demolition.”²

It was an education to me … to watch Professor Pollard’s mind at work, to see the march of his ideas as question succeeded question, and to admire the lucidity and logic with which they were deployed.

(E. Barker, 1953)